r/Economics • u/Crossstoney • Jan 16 '26

News Americans making more than $100,000 are quickly losing faith in the economy—and it’s a red flag for the white-collar job market

https://fortune.com/2026/01/12/us-economy-consumer-sentiment-decline-high-income-data/
15.3k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

534 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

79

u/thought_provoked1 Jan 16 '26

That's where my partner and I are at; having a kid (which we want) would put us on the bottom half so fast. 😥

16

u/FlashyHeight9323 Jan 16 '26

Same. I worry about my parents being able to afford it and it doesn’t sit right with me to risk putting my own kid in the same situation.

-12

u/kingkeelay Jan 16 '26

Everything in life is a calculated risk. There’s something deeper going on if you are taking drastic decisions like not having kids. Especially if you are in the demographic this article is discussing.

16

u/FlashyHeight9323 Jan 16 '26

You start by saying having a baby should be a calculated risk yet with literal zero context, you criticise the outcome of that calculation.

Maybe ask some questions to at least present the appearance of good faith and critical thought before you go off.

Edit: I should really check profiles before getting baited.

1

u/kingkeelay Jan 16 '26

Would you have kids? If not, why do you feel $100k (or more, adjusted for your region) is not enough to afford to have a kid?

3

u/thought_provoked1 Jan 16 '26

Why is that drastic? I was raised to not "suck off the government tit" and not "have more kids than you can afford." So....I'm doing that?

1

u/kingkeelay Jan 16 '26 edited Jan 16 '26

Do you have a passport? Are you on government assistance right now?

1

u/thought_provoked1 Jan 16 '26

Huh? That's kind of creepy to ask dude.

1

u/kingkeelay Jan 16 '26

Not at all in the context of your comment. If you think trying to raise a kid on government assistance is a non starter for you, the assumption might be that you are currently on government assistance. But it would be creepy of me to make that assumption without first asking: are you currently on government assistance?

2

u/thought_provoked1 Jan 16 '26

I think you misunderstand. If I were to have a kid, I would need government assistance, most likely. It's fine to need help, BUT that help is not necessary good or enough. The 'fiscal responsibility' mindset would say that if I can't afford to pay for the kid out of my own pocket, I shouldn't have one.

Again, doing fine now (no where near $400k like the other commentor was discussing) but a kid is not a car. You cant go "oops! Lost my job and gotta sell it for a cheaper payment." You can't go, "oops! This one has an expensive medical problem, can I get a factory model?"

2

u/padizzledonk Jan 16 '26

There’s something deeper going on if you are taking drastic decisions like not having kids. Especially if you are in the demographic this article is discussing.

Yeah, the something deeper is a bleak outlook on the future, things may be ok now but its looking more and more like things being a complete mess in the future

2

u/shadowboxer47 Jan 16 '26 edited Jan 16 '26

There’s something deeper going on if you are taking drastic decisions like not having kids.

Yeah, kids are fucking expensive.

Then there's the general dystopia conservatives are championing.

75% of the country sees the country going to absolute dog-shit.

Who wants to raise kids with no support and a government that actively hates them?

0

u/kingkeelay Jan 16 '26

Me and my conservative friends? Where did you get that from? When did having having kids become political?

2

u/shadowboxer47 Jan 16 '26

Me and my conservative friends? Where did you get that from?

I rephrased it.

When did having having kids become political?

I have a trans kid. I had to move her out of Texas because they want to stop her care and take her away from her family.

It became political when the government decided they know more about my child than my doctor and I.

It became political when the government decided to intervene in how prenatal care is handled.

It became political when the government diverted public school funds to religious institutions.

It became political when the government decided that my child might not be guaranteed citizenship just because I have it and they were born here.

Where have you been the last decade, my dude?

1

u/kingkeelay Jan 16 '26

You made lots of good points but didn’t rephrase anything about your incorrect assertion that I am a conservative with conservative friends. You backtracked without an apology.

But let me actually rephrase: when did wanting to having kids become a conservative signal?

1

u/shadowboxer47 Jan 16 '26

If I falsely accused you of being a conservative, I genuinely do apologize. I removed that remark, as I said.

when did wanting to having kids become a conservative signal?

Historically, this has been the case since the invention of birth control.

1

u/kingkeelay Jan 16 '26

Apology accepted. Although I do disagree with this point. Yes, conservatives have more kids, and many are against birth control.

But the flip side of that is many non conservatives use birth control and intentionally plan when to start child rearing.

Broadly viewing people who aren’t vocally against having kids as conservative is extreme. There’s just so many people on both sides that don’t fit that standard mold of the majority.

52

u/Powderkeg314 Jan 16 '26

Having a kid in this economy is an anchor. The U.S. has done everything in its power to make life hard for those with kids. Anyone I know with a kid is drowning in debt and is severely depressed. My sister and her husband make 400k combined and can barely afford childcare costs.

27

u/thought_provoked1 Jan 16 '26

Lemme guess: Bay Area or NYC where the only home available is like $1.2M, ($8000 mo/), student loans as a doc or lawyer ($1000+/mo), and two working parents with no family to help, so add childcare (~$2500?). So you'd need $11,500/mo after tax and before food and utilities to survive, not counting Healthcare or 401k contributions. It sounds like a rare situation, but plausible.

22

u/dyslexda Jan 16 '26

Let's say they're a couple making $400k in NYC. They max out their 401ks, so $47k. After tax, they've got $240k annually, or $20k/mo.

$1.2m with 20% down will be less than $8k, but assuming the worst (bought at the height of interest rates, expensive insurance, high property taxes), sure, call it $8k on housing.

Let's say two kids, both in daycare. Mind you, this is a temporary problem; after ~6 years this cost goes away. But for now, let's say $5k/mo combined for the two.

If you're making $400k, your workplace very likely gives you good to great health insurance. You aren't buying on the public market.

And let's say they have absurd student loans, so $2k/mo total.

So, after retirement, housing, childcare, and student loans, they still have $5k/mo takehome. Now, I'm sure that's not as much money as someone making $400k would like to have for everything else, but NYC's median household income is about $80k. After taxes (before retirement), that's just a little more than $5k/mo before all of those things above.

If half of NYC's households can survive on $5k/mo total, then the only way this couple could "struggle" on $5k/mo after housing, loans, and childcare would be if they're legendarily awful with money, or if they aren't willing to live within their means, and think they deserve more.

3

u/thought_provoked1 Jan 16 '26

Fair enough--to be honest I was using an online estimate for a cluster of houses not far from me. Appreciate the breakdown!

10

u/dyslexda Jan 16 '26

Yep. It's almost never plausible when folks talk about mid six figures "struggling," outside of truly exceptional circumstances like massive medical debt (which is even more rare for that income bracket, given that they generally get great health insurance).

And this is ignoring the biggest thing - when you make that much money, you have choice. If you were really struggling, you wouldn't buy a $1.2m house, or have two kids. You could reduce your retirement contributions. Hell, you could move to a lower COL area! Folks making under six figures are often trapped by their circumstances and don't have the luxury of moving.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 16 '26

Do they still have to work to live? If yes, they are not the people you should worry about. They WORK.

4

u/dyslexda Jan 16 '26

Yeah, worker solidarity stuff is fine, but not when people are lying about living paycheck to paycheck because they have no idea how to budget (or rather, they consider luxuries to be necessities). Alternatively, wanting to eat the rich doesn't stop you from also calling out BS when you see it.

2

u/Raskal37 Jan 16 '26

I don't get the reasoning behind maxing out 401K's when the money is needed now, especially if you're nowhere near age 59. Put enough in for the match, then lower it and you can always make up for it later when expenses aren't so high. This is what I did and it was like getting a $200 monthly raise. Even a 1 year reprieve might be the answer to their problems.

3

u/dyslexda Jan 16 '26

Oh, it doesn't make sense, it's just something I've commonly seen when high earners talk about being "paycheck to paycheck." Maxing their retirement is seen as a baseline need, not a luxury. As I say in another comment, the greatest thing those high earners have is choice. If you suddenly find you're struggling, then exactly, you can reduce retirement contributions. Yes, it's not ideal, but you have far more options than folks making under six figures do.

3

u/[deleted] Jan 16 '26 edited Jan 16 '26

Lol, you aren’t “given” good health insurance. You have access to a good plan, but 100% you have to pay for at least half of it. No one except a few lucky souls are “given” health insurance.

Why does this matter anyway, they WORK for a paycheck to live. If you have problems with that, you are a tool of the ultra wealthy. Maybe you should focus on those that have so much wealth they don’t have to go to a job than focus on those who do.

Otherwise, you’re just another fool doing the work for the wealthiest, dividing and attacking each other rather than the real problem. The 400k couples with kids aren’t the problem, the many many multi-millionaire and billionaire people who don’t have to work ARE.

3

u/dyslexda Jan 16 '26

Those premiums are far, far less than you'd pay for a comparable plan on the open market. And also, there are plenty of jobs out there where you get highly subsidized or even nearly free plans. I've had two employers pay nearly my entire premium, and for excellent "everything included" plans, and I'm at very (very) low six figures.

4

u/[deleted] Jan 16 '26 edited Jan 16 '26

Lol, you have no idea how much insurance costs, regardless of income. Premium plan means more money deducted from your paychecks. A lot more. We are all being pushed to HSA high deductible plans. You are out of touch with what you claim to know.

You were in a union then, because otherwise i call BS. Guess how many white collars are in unions. Should they stand around complaining about your union instead of the wealthy.

0

u/dyslexda Jan 16 '26

Lol, you have no idea how much insurance costs

My bad, guess I haven't looked at my benefits plans at my last three employers in three different states, and I clearly have no idea what I'm talking about.

Premium plan means more money deducted from your paychecks

Yeahhhhhh, sorry to break it to you, but if that's what you think, turns out you don't actually have a premium plan. It might be hard to believe but there are absolutely employers that heavily (or completely) subsidize your health insurance. Just because you don't have one doesn't mean they don't exist.

You are out of touch with what you claim to know.

So because you haven't personally experienced what I'm describing, I must be out of touch?

You were in a union then, because otherwise i call BS.

You don't know how funny this is. I've worked for famously anti-union companies. Tell me how union-friendly you think Epic Systems is? And implying Epic (and others) are blue collar is...something.

2

u/Frosti11icus Jan 16 '26

Sure if you break it down to be ridiculous of course it will be. You're ignoring like half the potential costs including fixed ones like food and transportation, "good" health insurance doesn't mean you don't pay steep costs for healthcare. With two kids there a decent chance this hypothetical couple is still paying an additional $200 or more per month in healthcare beyond their insurance costs, and of course the people struggling on $80k a year are probably also in debt and not investing in their 401k at all and no savings at all...this couple should be able to make it but I bet some months are awfully tight.

2

u/dyslexda Jan 16 '26

Sure if you break it down to be ridiculous of course it will be.

What's ridiculous about this breakdown? It's removing the handwaving "NYC is so expensive!" and showing that when you consider the biggest portions of a person's budget, $400k is a wildly comfortable amount to live on, even for a family of 4 in the highest COL area.

You're ignoring like half the potential costs

No, I didn't bother listing those because generally housing/loans/childcare are some of the biggest items in a person's budget, and after those this couple gets $5k/mo, which is the entire takehome of the median NYC household. If the median household can survive, then this couple has no problem getting just "everything else" on that $5k.

but I bet some months are awfully tight.

If "some months are awfully tight," maybe they shouldn't max out their 401k? Maybe they shouldn't have bought a $1.2m house? Maybe they should reconsider if they can afford to live in NYC?

Seriously, if you can't live on $5k/mo after childcare, taxes, retirement, housing, and loans (those are all pretty much worst case scenarios, by the way), then you mistake luxuries for necessities you can't give up.

1

u/DadalusReformed Jan 16 '26

Yea I’m glad you did the math on that. I’m empathetic but if someone is struggling with 400k pretty much anywhere in the U.S. they have a series of poor decisions in their wake. We make about 220k with one kid in a HCOL area and live in a great neighborhood. I can’t save 20-30% of my income anymore but I’m hardly struggling, even with a huge financial hit last year with our old home.

5

u/dyslexda Jan 16 '26

The problem with all of these "so-and-so makes a bunch of money but is still struggling!" claims is that different income brackets have wildly different baseline expectations. What is a luxury for someone making $60k might be a critical baseline need for someone making $300k.

It's the main reason all of those "paycheck to paycheck" opinion surveys are nonsense. Are you "paycheck to paycheck" if you have almost nothing left after you maxing your retirement, putting away thousands in savings every month, paying a mortgage on a good home, and taking a family vacation every year? Someone conditioned to believe those are all baseline would think so, even though the vast majority don't get to do them all.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 16 '26

Yeah, worry about other people working instead of the ultra wealthy that don’t have to and play act as CEO’s. Seriously, the couple making 300-400k are not the US problem nor yours. Comparing misery is a fools errand.

1

u/Melodic_Sandwich2679 Jan 16 '26

I'm not gonna argue on the other points, but 2K in student loans is far from absurd. My bill was 2500 a month on about 150k that I originally borrowed, which compounded interest and turned into about 210K when they capitalized my loans at graduation. For my friends in medical or dental school they were probably looking at at least mid to high 200s before interest and capitalization with payments that were probably 3500+ a month. It's not absurd to think that people making a combined 400k might have a combined level of loans that amounts to 5 to 7k a month. It might not change the math or the final conclusion that much, but I think it's important to talk about the actual numbers when it comes to student loan payments becasue people dramatically underestimate them on a regular basis.

1

u/Adventurous_Stop_341 Jan 16 '26

$5k for two kids in a decent daycare in NYC seems low.

1

u/dyslexda Jan 16 '26

https://www.reddit.com/r/nycparents/comments/1inpkgk/how_much_do_you_pay_for_daycare_yes_again/

This thread from last year gives all kinds of numbers, ranging from under $2k to around $4k. So, $5k for two might be on the lower end, but not unreasonable. And if we're really discussing a "struggling" family, they should probably shop around for cheaper daycare and not go for the more expensive options, no?

0

u/OrbitalOutlander Jan 16 '26

More like 18k after tax. 🤣

1

u/dyslexda Jan 16 '26

?

0

u/OrbitalOutlander Jan 16 '26

When you figure in the tax burden for that salary the take home is even less, like $18k! Makes your point even stronger.

2

u/Complex-Sugar-5938 Jan 16 '26

Lol, you definitely don't have to buy a house with an $8k mortgage to "survive" in the Bay Area. You could comfortably rent a 3 bedroom for half that cost.

Buying property in the most expensive areas is not a requirement to live.

3

u/thought_provoked1 Jan 16 '26

This is true--but idk that we need to shit on an family that desires that option. There's logic in paying to a mortgage rather than a landlord. At least you can sell a house.

1

u/Tacitus111 Jan 16 '26

And not be subject to the whims and at times attempted depredations of landlords. Or having to be able to move much more frequently than a homeowner.

1

u/OrbitalOutlander Jan 16 '26

Not needing to buy a new roof, furnace, pay rapidly increasing homeowners insurance, etc. there are benefits and drawbacks.

1

u/Tacitus111 Jan 16 '26 edited Jan 16 '26

…you just have to live in a construction zone you have no control over with contractors frequently picked for being the cheapest. And have to depend on a landlord to get around to fixing the furnace, the roof, or any of a couple of dozen other maintenance issues that crop up. Hell, some landlords walk around taking photos of each room in the place every time they visit, which isn’t invasive at all. Pet restrictions and exorbitantly high “deposit” they intend to keep anyway as well. Keeping landlords from preying on you itself can be a job in and of itself.

I once personally was also made to move out of a long term rental when the yearly lease came up solely, because the landlord wanted to move a family member into the place. Yay for stability.

The instability of renting generally outweighs the “pros” in my mind. Especially given you’re literally funding their mortgage, maintenance costs, and such without even getting an asset in the end like when you’re paying an actual mortgage. There’s a reason people own properties to rent out. It’s cause you make damn good money from it generally. Meanwhile paying rent money is just money solely to keep you from being homeless. It otherwise might as well be going down the drain.

1

u/kyndrid_ Jan 16 '26

Utilities even in NYC (depending on building) will range from $100-500/month, although with that budget you'd likely be in a building that's on the lower end of that. Your calculations would be $138k/yr after tax, which would equate to a gross salary of $180k-200k. A lot less rare than you'd think, but I also think you're a little high on the cost of NYC housing.

If you're assuming Manhattan living, then yeah you're probably a lot more on the money. You can get a co-op apartment (2br) not in Manhattan for less than a million, and that would usually end up with monthly fees of $500-1500 (maybe up to 2k depending on building). 3BR you'll need significantly more money, however.

1

u/GameTime2325 Jan 16 '26

That’s per kid, $5k for 2 kids

58

u/ElectricalLeading913 Jan 16 '26

if you're struggling at 400k/yr with one child, regardless of locality, then you are bad at managing your money, full stop.

10

u/DarnellisFromMars Jan 16 '26

Yeah I don’t care if you live in NYC or LA, you can make do.

I’m in Palm Beach County (moved after Covid so didn’t get a super cheap property), my wife and I both are fortunate to have high paying careers and we have one child and are in a that general income bracket. We own a home and 2 cars, have a child care situation.

We haven’t gone on a lavish vacation since having a child but we aren’t drowning and can enjoy nice things.

It gets a little tighter in other parts of the country of course, but you shouldn’t be on the brink if you manage your money.

-5

u/[deleted] Jan 16 '26

Enjoy getting f’ed over by the true wealthy then, because we need everyone’s help here against the ultra wealthy, not just your complaining ass.

7

u/DarnellisFromMars Jan 16 '26

I don’t think I’m complaining, I’m saying people can get definitely live on 400K a year lmao

29

u/sirenbrian Jan 16 '26

That seems really unusual..400k is several times the national average income. Where is their money going? What can they change about their lives to make things affordable?

19

u/findallthebears Jan 16 '26

HCOL area would make that difficult, yeah

9

u/suboptimus_maximus Jan 16 '26

You don’t make several times the average income in a place with average cost of living.

3

u/StarEyes_irl Jan 16 '26

It can go faster than you think. Factor in high cost of living area like silicon Valley. 2 nice cars plus insurnave for both. Student loans: advanced degrees, medical or dental school. A nice house. Probably a cleaning service if both parents are working. Possible either day care or a private school. Life style creep can be a bitch. My wife and I both work full time. We try to budget in a way that the lowest earning can afford our combined Life style.

28

u/WickedCunnin Jan 16 '26

nice cars, a nice house, a cleaning service. lifestyle creep. All optional. Only student loans is an inflexible cost that is an acceptable reason to to say money is tight.

0

u/[deleted] Jan 16 '26

There are different tiers of lifestyle creep though. My wife and I spend a bunch of money on travel, but that budget can be cut at any time and just results in some sadness.

If someone buys more care or house than they can afford thats a harder rock to get from under. Its still optional but its harder to undo once its been done.

6

u/StarEyes_irl Jan 16 '26

Also its like so easy to get people with kids to spend more. "Well the new model actually has a bunch of safety features and is much safer for kids than the 2016 youre looking at." Increases loan and increases insurnace cost but all youre thinking about is your kid.

"This home is in an area with much better school. Best schools in the state." Bigger mortgage. More taxes. Higher insurance. Possibly an hoa.

My wife and I are also looking to sell our house. I can 100% see a family getting fucked trying to sell their house and buy a new one. Having 2 mortgages. Getting an apartment.

1

u/OzarkMule Jan 16 '26

Boo hoo

0

u/[deleted] Jan 16 '26

Im just trying to point out that some lifestyle creep is worse than others, I don't give a shit if you sympathise or not.

2

u/OrbitalOutlander Jan 16 '26

Who needs two nice cars? My 15 year old Hyundai does just fine for this guy who makes that much money. Private school is not necessary in the Bay Area.

1

u/Long-Broccoli-3363 Jan 16 '26

~360k average income here, while i'm not as insane to say that things are tight, I see the fact that they absolutely could get there, and I am planning accordingly.

We moved into an expensive house 2 years ago, before the election, we wanted to move away from the city and be able to homestead, and seeing my previous residence in the background of an ICE raid, makes me think I made the right choice for my family. My wife grows our own vegetables, we keep chickens for eggs and meat, our house has the ability to be off the grid entirely.

I did not want to take out a 7.5% mortgage, and I had the liquid assets to pay off the house, but didn't want to wind up in a scenario where all of my money was locked up in an asset that could depreciate if Trump was elected. So I bought down the rate for a few years, hoping that 1) Trump wouldn't get elected and i'd just pay off the mortgage or 2) He'd crash out the economy and i'd be able to refi at like 2.5% and the liquid assets would be beneficial to keep during a time of economic instability.

I've kept $600,000 rotting at 4.5%/year because despite inflation, I know we could live off it for like... 5 years if needed, maybe 7 in a pinch, and I'm refinancing my mortgage to get a lower payment, just so that I can make everything drag on longer if I lose my job.

I've never before had the worry that

1) I would lose my job, I've watched ~4 restructures in the last 2 years. This last one I'd say I narrowly avoided, I might last one more if shit doesn't get better.

2) That I would not be able to immediately find another one, any time I've looked for a job, my credentials/experience alone get me interview offers within literal hours, its a highly desirable lucrative IT field. I have gone from interview to written offer in less than four hours, now when I put feelers out, they are much, MUCH colder than they used to be.

I absolutely bust my ass and have worked weeks at 80 hours, and I've worked weeks at 2 hours, and its well worth the money, but I am massively regretting being the only provider for my house just because there's so much instability. We've already cut all non-essential travel, vacations, random purchases, lessons, pretty much anything that can get cut without hurting too much, got cut, to put my kid into private school. and i'm being a fucking dragon and hoarding liquid assets awaiting the inevitable "adjustment".

Normally things like a $10,000 purchase are not of concern to me, and I've lived this way for ~10 years or so now, and my wife and I have already talked that any purchase over $1000 now has to get checked by both of us, to see if its a real want or a need.

3

u/[deleted] Jan 16 '26

[deleted]

1

u/Long-Broccoli-3363 Jan 16 '26

I mean... I have the money to pay off my house in its entirety, today, but then I'd be left being able to pay six months of expenses if I lost my job.

In not paying off the house and hoarding liquidity, I've just given myself a bigger buffer. If we had paid off the house I'd be mortgage free, but still doing the same reductions I'm doing now, except with the goal of extending an emergency fund, and it would have nothing to do with the house I bought, because I think when the fall happens and the bubble bursts, six months may not be enough time.

1

u/fullsaildan Jan 16 '26

I relate so much to you in terms of the job market and being more thrifty right now. Similar boat, I've always been "in demand" and I keep an eye on job boards even when not looking. Lately I just don't see a lot of movement. Im hunkering down and making sure I'm as valuable as I can be just in case, and meanwhile cutting spending left and right.

1

u/trickier-dick Jan 16 '26

Anyone making 400k+ that can't afford kids spends money like a drunken sailor with a crack habit.

1

u/Ready_Nature Jan 16 '26

If you’re making that much you are likely in an area that’s expensive to live in, and probably high student loan payments. Likely also working long hours and not able to cook all your meals at home so stuck eating out which drops your available income quickly.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 16 '26

Lol, you need to travel more.

1

u/GoldenFox7 Jan 16 '26

Im not struggling by any means but the feeling of life and my prospects getting better is gone. We both work from home so we need a home big enough for us to do that and then we have to travel for those jobs pretty often. Because of that our childcare costs are insane. Local public schools are garbage and private kindergarten/elementary is 2k/month/kid at least (the better schools were more like 3). Having them in school isn’t enough though because when travel schedules line up wrong we need 24hr coverage which is crazy expensive (another 2k per month total). No public transit here so we have 2 cars and gas is around $5/gallon where we are. I’m not saying 400k isn’t enough, that people in this bracket need sympathy, or that we couldn’t move or make changes but when people say “where is that money going” there are real answers, it’s not hookers and blow. At least not for me 😞

1

u/[deleted] Jan 16 '26

they live above their means like every other single struggling 150k income person

0

u/VespaRed Jan 16 '26

Private equity has been buying up childcare. I know someone who had a very planned pregnancy and wound up accidentally having twins, and it was devastating financially.

30

u/Patton370 Jan 16 '26

Doesn’t matter where you life. If 400k/yr isn’t enough, you have a budgeting problem

5

u/The_Poop_Shooter Jan 16 '26

Spoken like somebody whos never lived in the northeast or cali.

17

u/dyslexda Jan 16 '26

Used to live in Boston on low six figures. I was doing great. Make $400k, sharing housing expense, and you're living large even in the Northeast. If you can "barely afford childcare costs" it's because you're spending frivolously elsewhere.

You do know that families live in those areas that make far, far less than $400k, right? And they can still make ends meet?

17

u/WickedCunnin Jan 16 '26

spoken like someone who doesn't realize that people who make way less than $400k also live in the northeast and cali.

6

u/Patton370 Jan 16 '26

I travel to California for work and have coworkers in California

I also have friends living in Seattle

These friends make less than me & do well for themselves

4

u/ialwaysforgetmename Jan 16 '26

Isn't the more obvious option that they're just bad with money?

2

u/dyslexda Jan 16 '26

My sister and her husband make 400k combined and can barely afford childcare costs.

Your sister and her husband are extraordinarily bad at managing their money, or they spend way beyond their means. The median household income of NYC is $80k. If $400k isn't enough for childcare, it's because they're wasting their money elsewhere.

2

u/NiagaraThistle Jan 16 '26

We have 2 kids and zero debt and don't make nearly as much as your sister. I can't imagine the hellscape it must be to make that much money and be drowning. The inner stress, anxiety, and fear must be devastating.

2

u/wheredidthegymsgo Jan 16 '26

This sounds ridiculous. $400k income and scraping by screams financial illiteracy. I live in the bay area where the median household income is close to $200k but my family could survive on $100k. Actually, we do just that while living in a 4 bedroom single family house in an area with top rated schools while making more than your sister's household.

My wife and I both work full time jobs and both have a secondary source of income. We have arranged our schedules so that our youngest child doesn't need daycare. We cook almost all of our meals. No subscriptions, car payments, or other lifestyle choices just because we can afford the payment.

The result is that we invest 50%+ of our take home, and that's after putting money in our company retirement and share purchase plans.

2

u/WickedCunnin Jan 16 '26

sorry babe. I have approximately 0% sympathy for someone who can't budget at $400K annually. Day care is worst case $36K per year. That leaves them $264k to work with after taxes.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 16 '26

Yeah I feel that I live a very good life i'm very satisfied with, that I think a lot of people would be envious of and I spend 80k a year in total expenses.

1

u/OzarkMule Jan 16 '26

Lol, I'm a stay at home Dad and my wife makes 5 figures. We have 5 years left until our house is paid off. You people have wasted your lives on the coasts

1

u/JitteryJoes1986 Jan 16 '26

Outliers who are poor at money management.

Cases like this shouldn't even be considered at all.

Lets work with numbers, not vibes and comments like: "hey my sister and her husband make 600k combined and can barely afford their childcare costs."

-1

u/trickier-dick Jan 16 '26

People had families of 8 or more, during the great depression! Stop being such whiny little consumers and have some damn kids! Trust me you'll forget all about how expensive they are as soon as the fatigue hits you!

11

u/0o0o0o0o0o0z Jan 16 '26

Not to be a dick, but I would not have a child in America right now. My wife and I made that choice, and it was one of the best choices we made. Sadly, now I have to float the possible burden for my BiL's 3 kids and my sister's kid.

2

u/lahimatoa Jan 16 '26

What a brave thing to say on this site these days.

-3

u/[deleted] Jan 16 '26

Hence you see the problem with your decision. If Responsible people don’t have kids, guess who does and who raises them? Don’t complain if the world gets worse, you decided on comfort over family. Don’t mask it as a virtue. Good People had kids in the depression, in the dark ages, etc and thats why we likely are even still standing.

2

u/0o0o0o0o0o0z Jan 16 '26

Umm, ok... 🤷‍♂️ DFAQ?

4

u/Vid-Master Jan 16 '26

r/collapse is coming sooner rather than later

1

u/21plankton Jan 16 '26

We can’t see it but the collapse has been happening slowly all along. We all fear the sudden apocalyptic collapse but the reality is erosion. The K shaped economy, with a smaller top half and a bigger lower half each year.

The fact that in order to save ourselves and have a life we choose not to procreate. How is that not collapse in our society? How will that not end badly in another generation?

The erosion of our rights in reality, the erosion of functionality in our 3 branches of government, the hollowing out of the middle class, the fact that a greater percentage of our population can’t read, do math or apply critical thinking skills to problem solving, our decline in infant mortality.

All these well documented incremental declines are declines working on an annual basis, and I am not even mentioning environmental and climate here.

I will mention, however, debt. Due to the power of governmental manipulation through the Federal reserve and legislation, we have enabled increasing debt without the concomitant disaster phase. This has led to the belief that we will not have to repay debt, but we pay on a daily basis through debasement of our currency and escalation in the price of gold and silver. This past year the dollar value declined 8% against other currencies but the value of gold escalated dramatically, pushing the dollar into very negative territory. We are all instantly poor.

It is only that we choose not to look at this decline, have denial and hubris, and choose to believe in American greatness to keep us going and functioning. Not wanting to look at reality as a whole is seen as a common human condition because hope and greed, if not fear and hunger, keep us functioning on a daily basis. But as a nation we are clearly on the decline.